It looks like you're enjoying The BBQ Brethren's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!

Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.

Food Handling General DiscussionGeneral and open discussion for food handling and safety.

That type of food poisoning is fast acting, a type of staph basically and you get sick from it's toxins. It also doesn't cause an off taste. Toxins produced also aren't necessarily killed by reheating.

Regarding the lawsuit, the caterers lawyers would have to prove they followed food safety rules first and foremost. Then they would likely have to try and establish where contamination took place. It's usually introduced by person to food contact, so maybe they could present enough doubt as to whether it was an employee or guest. Kind of a Longshot

__________________
Traeger Silverton, PBC, Blackstone 36" and a Broil King Baron... Life is good

That type of food poisoning is fast acting, a type of staph basically and you get sick from it's toxins. It also doesn't cause an off taste. Toxins produced also aren't necessarily killed by reheating.

Regarding the lawsuit, the caterers lawyers would have to prove they followed food safety rules first and foremost. Then they would likely have to try and establish where contamination took place. It's usually introduced by person to food contact, so maybe they could present enough doubt as to whether it was an employee or guest. Kind of a Longshot

I would think either direction would be tough to prove three years after the fact. Hopefully the caterer maintains good records and didn't throw them away.
Food poisoning can present as early as 20 minutes after a meal, depending on the type of infection.

I didn't see anywhere that the patients vomit or diarrhea had been tested for the toxins. If they didn't test, there's no way to prove it was the caterer, in fact, no way to prove it was a food borne illness either. 'Coincidence' does not hold up in court.

Just read the second article: The patients were tested, but the caters food was not. Cater should win this one.

I agree that others bringing food to the event is a contributory negligence, however most caterers do not allow others to bring and serve outside items, whether it be foods or beverages. This is even stated in most catering contracts.
(This is the reason most caterers do not sell food by the pan, they lose all control over temperature and sanitary conditions)

Although all the articles I have read give us little bits and pieces, one of the areas of concern is where the vendor refused to give requested samples to the health department in a timely manner.

Then you have an issue where some states do not elect judges, but rather politically appoint them; then you can have an inexperienced judge in law who has their own interpretation or opinion of the law to deal with. Some of these appointed judges do not know the specific area of law and will make decisions based on personal opinions. You can pay your lawyers to take it to the higher courts for a ruling, but again with great expense.

The bottom line is that even if he wins, his business will always carry the stigma of the guy who made everybody sick.

I agree that others bringing food to the event is a contributory negligence, however most caterers do not allow others to bring and serve outside items, whether it be foods or beverages. This is even stated in most catering contracts.
(This is the reason most caterers do not sell food by the pan, they lose all control over temperature and sanitary conditions)

Although all the articles I have read give us little bits and pieces, one of the areas of concern is where the vendor refused to give requested samples to the health department in a timely manner.

Then you have an issue where some states do not elect judges, but rather politically appoint them; then you can have an inexperienced judge in law who has their own interpretation or opinion of the law to deal with. Some of these appointed judges do not know the specific area of law and will make decisions based on personal opinions. You can pay your lawyers to take it to the higher courts for a ruling, but again with great expense.

The bottom line is that even if he wins, his business will always carry the stigma of the guy who made everybody sick.